Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

1…6162646667…331

Comments

  • #1892
    darem93
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 200 ✭✭darem93


    Even people who initially told me they were reluctant to get the vaccine are now more than willing to take it. I think the vast majority of people are just so desperate to get back to normality at the minute that they'll do whatever it takes.


  • #1893
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,510 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    https://twitter.com/MichealLehane/status/1383382755245924355 did they not read https://twitter.com/lostexpectation/status/1383390606605504517


  • #1894
    amandstu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,218 ✭✭✭amandstu


    What level of protection is afforded by the first jab of either the Pfizer or Astrazeneca vaccines?

    What would be the respective levels of protection against moderate to serious symptoms?


  • #1895
    ACitizenErased
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭ACitizenErased


    stephenjmcd wrote: »
    Hes gone about it the wrong way but the logic behind it is pretty solid to be fair to him. I'm no fan of his but there's scope for it to be looked at. Ultimately NIAC can say no so can the vaccine task force but I can absolutely see why it would be looked into.

    The logic behind it isn't idiotic, the manner of which he's gone about it is

    This exactly


  • #1896
    Strazdas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,427 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    Russman wrote: »
    Yeah this exactly. I can see the thinking behind it, I disagree with it but can see where he’s coming from. As Lumen says above, public health policy needs to simple and stable and not change every few days. Given the change to age based only happened two weeks ago, another change would need to show a massive benefit rather than maybe a bit of a marginal gain in numbers, to be justified. It’s likely to be only a couple of weeks either way anyway, leave well enough alone.

    I mean, IF, they hope to have 80% of adults offered a jab by end of June, isn’t it better to have the 20% shortfall made up of people in their 20s rather than their 50s while we’re catching up ?

    I don't know know how they could possibly justify vaccinating 18 and 19 year olds ahead of 58 and 59 year olds.....it's a really strange one. It stands to reason that the latter group are far more at risk from Covid-19. The numbers of fit and healthy teenagers who ended up in hospital or dying from the virus must be miniscule.


  • Advertisement
  • #1897
    ACitizenErased
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭ACitizenErased


    Opposition lapping this up now
    https://twitter.com/micheallehane/status/1383391800455405573?s=21


  • #1898
    Strazdas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,427 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    Apparently a Government spokesman has just denied the story and says there is no plan to change the age cohorts (RTE).


  • #1899
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    More busywork nonsense to make it seem more complicated than it is and make it look like they're working ever so hard.
    Sure why wouldn't they keep running nonsense like this, sure there's no consequences for them.


  • #1900
    km79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 48,457 ✭✭✭✭km79


    So damaging to the Govts messaging
    He has to go now
    So obviously and dangerously out of his depth
    Nobody will listen to a word he has to say now


  • #1901
    A Shaved Duck?
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,693 ✭✭✭A Shaved Duck?


    noserider wrote: »
    But who is going to hold him to account?
    Absolutely nobody. He continues to make howlers in a manner of a man who has no grip on reality or modicum of humility

    Vincent brown called him out for the self serving charlatan he is when he jumped from the independent to try and get a ministerial position.

    Since then donnelly has proved every statement brown made on it completely true.


  • Advertisement
  • #1902
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Russman wrote: »
    I know it was in the original plan (it was silly then too), but take all the noise out of it and you have a virus that’s progressively more dangerous/lethal the older you are - why would you suggest vaccinating the younger people ahead of the middle aged ?

    Now that deaths are way down and in a month or so will be even further down (and we will be able to open up) the government has been gradually moving to "But muh case numbers" as the scary metric. They won't admit that 1000 cases a day with zero deaths and 2 hospitalisations means we should be fully re-opening. So with cases up among younger people that's the next "target" that we must address. Apparently.:rolleyes:


  • #1903
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,510 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Strazdas wrote: »
    Apparently a Government spokesman has just denied the story and says there is no plan to change the age cohorts (RTE).
    there is no plan but it has been considered


  • #1904
    Strazdas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,427 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    A Shaved Duck? wrote: »
    Vincent brown called him out for the self serving charlatan he is when he jumped from the independent to try and get a ministerial position.

    Since then donnelly has proved every statement brown made on it completely true.

    He does seem a bit of a loose cannon and overly fond of media interviews.


  • #1905
    Strazdas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,427 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    expectationlost wrote: »
    there is no plan but it has been considered

    That could well be the case but he should have kept it to himself - the Irish Times immediately seized on that part of his interview and made it a headline.


  • #1906
    km79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 48,457 ✭✭✭✭km79


    expectationlost wrote: »
    there is no plan but it has been considered

    HSE chief executive Paul Reid says its plan will only change if directed to do so.

    "We are working off medical, scientific advice from the National Immunisation Advice Committee which is very strong and compelling to administer the vaccines based on age," said Mr Reid.

    "That is where the highest risk is and that is the plan agreed by Government and that is the plan we are working through right now.

    "If at any stage there are changed by the Government, we will change the plan accordingly but all of the medical and scientific advice is strongly to administer based on age."


    It’s not being considered as there is no medical or scientific evidence to make them consider a change in approach they took only a few weeks ago based on strong evidence


  • #1907
    Hurrache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,381 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    Strazdas wrote: »
    Apparently a Government spokesman has just denied the story and says there is no plan to change the age cohorts (RTE).

    Because there is no story to deny, it was Donnelly on a solo kite flying expedition again.


  • #1908
    stephenjmcd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,450 ✭✭✭✭stephenjmcd


    km79 wrote: »
    HSE chief executive Paul Reid says its plan will only change if directed to do so.

    "We are working off medical, scientific advice from the National Immunisation Advice Committee which is very strong and compelling to administer the vaccines based on age," said Mr Reid.

    "That is where the highest risk is and that is the plan agreed by Government and that is the plan we are working through right now.

    "If at any stage there are changed by the Government, we will change the plan accordingly but all of the medical and scientific advice is strongly to administer based on age."


    It’s not being considered as there is no medical or scientific evidence to make them consider a change in approach they took only a few weeks ago based on strong evidence

    Paul Reid wouldn't know if it's being considered or not. They get dictated to by the government and NIAC


    Your saying its not being considered. NIAC could well be looking into but the only plan Paul Reid has is the one infront of him.


  • #1909
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,510 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Strazdas wrote: »
    That could well be the case but he should have kept it to himself - the Irish Times immediately seized on that part of his interview and made it a headline.
    read the doc https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116918051&postcount=1911


  • #1910
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,510 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    km79 wrote: »
    HSE chief executive Paul Reid says its plan will only change if directed to do so.

    "We are working off medical, scientific advice from the National Immunisation Advice Committee which is very strong and compelling to administer the vaccines based on age," said Mr Reid.

    "That is where the highest risk is and that is the plan agreed by Government and that is the plan we are working through right now.

    "If at any stage there are changed by the Government, we will change the plan accordingly but all of the medical and scientific advice is strongly to administer based on age."


    It’s not being considered as there is no medical or scientific evidence to make them consider a change in approach they took only a few weeks ago based on strong evidence
    read the doc https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116918051&postcount=1911


  • #1911
    Corholio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,014 ✭✭✭✭Corholio


    expectationlost wrote: »
    read the doc https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116918051&postcount=1911

    We know it was part of a plan once upon a time but the confusion is the fact he mentioned it seemingly without other ministers knowing it was being considered again. The kite is nearly in space at this stage.


  • Advertisement
  • #1912
    Skygord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 205 ✭✭Skygord


    stephenjmcd wrote: »
    Hes gone about it the wrong way but the logic behind it is pretty solid to be fair to him. I'm no fan of his but there's scope for it to be looked at. Ultimately NIAC can say no so can the vaccine task force but I can absolutely see why it would be looked into.

    The logic behind it isn't idiotic, the manner of which he's gone about it is

    Not idiotic, but it's an approach that targets chains of transmission. As did the plan which prioritised occupations like teachers, Gards, meat factory workers etc - and that would be a better way to target chains of transmission.

    But we pivoted away from that, only a couple of weeks ago, to protect those to whom the virus is likely to do the most damage - by age.

    Pivoting back again, after only just getting the message across about age, will just reopen those debates about Gards, Teachers etc, for probably marginal benefit, yet massive distrust of our 'leaders' having an efficient plan.

    Donnelly must go.


  • #1913
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,510 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Corholio wrote: »
    We know it was part of a plan once upon a time but the confusion is the fact he mentioned it seemingly without other ministers knowing it was being considered again. The kite is nearly in space at this stage.
    They say his comments to @IrishTimes was the first they heard of the idea.
    ministers should read the doc they agree to and publish


  • #1914
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 78,458 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Threads merged


  • #1915
    Corholio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,014 ✭✭✭✭Corholio


    Skygord wrote: »
    Not idiotic, but it's an approach that targets chains of transmission. As did the plan which prioritised occupations like teachers, Gards, meat factory workers etc - and that would be a better way to target chains of transmission.

    But we pivoted away from that, only a couple of weeks ago, to protect those to whom the virus is likely to do the most damage - by age.

    Pivoting back again, after only just getting the message across about age, will just reopen those debates about Gards, Teachers etc, for probably marginal benefit, yet massive distrust of our 'leaders' having an efficient plan.

    Donnelly must go.

    Yes, the fact they made a big deal about the age benefit to the rollout, pivoting away from that so soon after again would be terrible optics. I don't actually think it's an awful idea, there's a few things they could do indeed, but these guys put themselves into corners so much that it's hard to know whether even good ideas would work under this lot.


  • #1916
    Corholio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,014 ✭✭✭✭Corholio


    expectationlost wrote: »
    ministers should read the doc they agree to and publish

    First they had heard of the idea being introduced now obviously.


  • #1917
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,510 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Corholio wrote: »
    First they had heard of the idea being introduced now obviously.
    they agree to and published a document that suggested this as a possibility https://assets.gov.ie/108854/babc7d1b-cb10-49db-8dd0-0c7408dea162.pdf


  • #1918
    Corholio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,014 ✭✭✭✭Corholio


    expectationlost wrote: »
    they agree to and published a document that suggested this as a possibility https://assets.gov.ie/108854/babc7d1b-cb10-49db-8dd0-0c7408dea162.pdf

    You're not understanding. This hasn't been mentioned since that was published, we have a rollout plan where that wasn't the order, the confusion was it being considered to change to that now without some knowing.


  • #1919
    lulublue22
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,496 ✭✭✭lulublue22


    sd1999 wrote: »
    Also, given that non vulnerable under 60s won’t get a vaccine until June, the argument about vaccinating secondary school teachers is redundant as secondary schools are closed from June onwards. Primary school teachers tend to be younger and if they were prioritised would only have had one dose a few weeks before the primary school year ends.

    This primary school staff tend to be younger is a fallacy - only 13% of school staff fall into the younger cohort. The vast majority of school staff are in the 30 to 50 age group followed by the 50 to 60 age group. Plus July provision and DEIS camps run through out July while home based provision runs from July to August.

    Not arguing for or against school staff being vacc but school staff tend to be younger is simply not true.


  • #1920
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,510 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Corholio wrote: »
    You're not understanding. This hasn't been mentioned since that was published, we have a rollout plan where that wasn't the order, the confusion was it being considered to change to that now without some knowing.
    no they are claiming this is the first they've heard of the idea when it isn't.


  • Advertisement
  • #1921
    Corholio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,014 ✭✭✭✭Corholio


    expectationlost wrote: »
    no they are claiming this is the first they've heard of the idea when it isn't.

    Sigh. Can't help you anymore.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement